UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7831

ROBERT HENSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD CLARKE, Director of Virginia Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:14-cv-00173-CMH-TCB)

Submitted:

February 25, 2016

Decided:

March 2, 2016

Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Henson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:
Robert Henson seeks to appeal the district courts order
denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of
the district courts order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2254
(2012) petition.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.

2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
issue

absent

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.

28 U.S.C.

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2012).

of

When the

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find
that the district courts assessment of the constitutional claims
is debatable or wrong.

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the
prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural
ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim
of the denial of a constitutional right.

Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-

85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Henson has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented

2

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED